[talk-au] Hiking tracks: foot=yes or foot=designated?
stevagewp at gmail.com
Tue Feb 23 23:33:30 GMT 2010
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 8:29 PM, John Henderson <snowgum at gmx.com> wrote:
> I agree that we don't have international hiking routes (IWN) in Australia.
> I thought it intuitive that a national route (NWN) would cross a state
> border and be a significantly long walk. Basically, that's the Bicentennial
> National Trail.
I think a little intuition can be a very dangerous thing. Remember,
the name "national walking route" is a UK term, reflecting a
particular way of administering trails by their government.
Essentially I think we can treat these four levels as just four levels
of significance to assign as we please, just as we have
The rule about crossing a state boundary...well, that will almost
never happen. Same with bike paths, our state boundaries are all in
the middle of nowhere. So that's just not useful.
> Regional routes (RWN) would then be walks within a state, and be significant
> within that state. These would include:
> Bibbulmun Track (WA)
> Cape to Cape Track (WA)
> Great North Walk (NSW)
> Great Ocean Walk (Vic)
> Great South West Walk (Vic)
> Heysen Trail (SA)
> Hume & Hovell Walking Track (NSW)
> Larapinta Trail (NT)
> Overland Track (Tas)
I originally put the Overland track as a RWN, then switched to NWN.
One consequence of this it is shows up at lower zoom levels on
lonvia's hiking map. Since there are so few long distance hiking
trails in Australia (compared to, say, central europe), we should
(IMHO) be fairly liberal with the higher designations, as there is no
danger of overcrowding the map.
> If a region is a state, then I'll agree that we have some big regions in
Yer, much bigger than most European countries.
>That's balanced by our lower population, and hiking route, density
> compared with Europe.
Yep, arguments for greater use of NWN etc.
More information about the Talk-au